Kosovo Crisis Inquiry: Memorandum On The International Law Aspects

2000 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 878-905 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Brownlie ◽  
C. J. Apperley
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Legal Adviser

1. This Memorandum has been prepared in accordance with the request of the Foreign Affairs Committee (letter dated 28 July 1999), which request referred to a written memorandum “on the area of international law“.1 In the course of his career as a member of the English Bar, specialising in international disputes, the writer has worked as legal adviser and/or advocate for at least 35 States. In this context it is necessary to point to the fact that, as a part of his professional involvements, he has acted as Counsel and Advocate in the recent proceedings before the International Court of Justice on behalf of Yugoslavia. It is also necessary to stress that the Memorandum represents his own views and that there has been no input from any Government or Government-related organisation.

The ICJ's Judgment in the Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000: Some Critical Observations

2001 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 373-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Wouters ◽  
Leen De Smet
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Universal Jurisdiction ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Domestic Courts

On 14 February 2002, the International Court of Justice (the Court) delivered its judgment in the case concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000. In this case, the Court had the opportunity to take an authoritative stance on, and to contribute to the development of, two major questions in the field of immunities and jurisdiction of contemporary international law: do Ministers for Foreign Affairs enjoy immunity against prosecution by national courts of another state for crimes under international law, and how far can a state go in granting universal jurisdiction to its domestic courts?

Judge Peter Kooijmans

1997 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 122-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan G. Lammers
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
World War ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Power Company ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
High Level

In a small note which Peter Kooijmans wrote to me in answer to a letter in which I congratulated him with his election as Judge in the International Court of Justice – the first Netherlands Judge in the Court after World War II apart from Professor Riphagen who only served as a Judge ad hoc in the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Ltd. case – he stated that he considered himself to be a privileged man. Privileged, because the new position would allow him to continue to remain active in the field of international law considerably beyond the retirement age of 65 which applies to professors of international law and most other people in The Netherlands. Privileged, I would like to add, also in another respect. Very rarely it will be given to one person in his lifetime to fulfil so many different honourable positions in the field of international law and international relations at such a high level of responsibility as has been the case with Peter Kooijmans: Professor of public international law, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, State Secretary (Staatssecretaris) for Foreign Affairs, in particular disarmament matters (1973–1977), Minister for Foreign Affairs and, finally, Judge in the International Court of Justice.

IMMUNITY FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMES: A REAFFIRMATION OF TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE

2002 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaodong Yang
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
International Court ◽  
Republic Of The Congo ◽  
Head Of Government

InArrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), decided on 14 February 2002, the International Court of Justice held that an incumbent Minister for Foreign Affairs was immune from criminal proceedings before a foreign domestic court, even if the charges involved crimes against humanity. Human rights advocates might well regard this decision as a serious setback. Decided against a widespread euphoria brought forth by, and largely due to a neglect of an important dictum in, the historic holding in Pinochet No. 3 [2000] 1 A.C. 147, the case serves further to clarify a crucial point of State immunity in current international law. The Pinochet case dealt with the immunity of a former, as opposed to a serving, Head of State. While the majority of the Law Lords only mentioned in passing that the immunity enjoyed by a serving Head of State ratione personae was absolute, the International Court of Justice stated, in unambiguous language, that: … in international law it is firmly established that, as also diplomatic and consular agents, certain holders of high-ranking office in a State, such as the Head of State, Head of Government and Minister for Foreign Affairs, enjoy immunities from jurisdiction in other States, both civil and criminal.

Introductory Note

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
John G. Merrills
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Introductory Note

In 2015 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave three judgments and made a number of orders. In various ways this jurisprudence, although modest in extent, contributed to the elucidation of international law on several procedural, as well as substantive matters. In that year no new cases were begun, but one case was discontinued. At the beginning of 2016 there were therefore ten cases on the Court’s docket. The Court’s work in 2015 demonstrates that through its decisions it continues to assist states to resolve their international disputes peacefully and at the same time to contribute to the clarification and development of international law.

Consolidation of Statehood through Membership in the UN: Some Remarks on Kosovo, Democracy and International Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-349
Author(s):  
Iliriana Islami ◽  
Remzije Istrefi
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
State Building ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Building Process

Kosovo declared its independence on 17 February 2008. Subsequently, one of the aims of Kosovo’s foreign policy was to further consolidate this position and to justify Kosovo’s prospective membership in the United Nations. This article examines the issue of recognition, elucidating how Kosovo is different from other countries and comparing it with the case of the former Yugoslavia. Other aspects in the state-building process such as ‘building constitutionalism’ will be presented as a step toward justifying recognition and membership. Furthermore, the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of 8 October 2008 will be presented as evidence of Kosovo’s strengthening international position in its quest for further recognition. Thus, the article will discuss and analyze the arguments in favor of Kosovo being admitted to the UN.

scholarly journals Remarks by Maria Flores

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 79-82
Author(s):  
Maria Flores
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Small Department ◽  
The University

I first became involved with international law while I was at university. After graduating, I decided to teach public international law. As an undergraduate, I particularly enjoyed this branch of study. I was attracted to it because it helped me to understand the problems, challenges, and breakthroughs in the field of international relations on a global scale. Therefore, after facing a competitive entry process, I joined the international law department of the Universidad de la República. It was a small department, but the university had produced some well-known scholars like Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga, who became a judge at the International Court of Justice, and Hector Gross Espiell, who served as a judge at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Plausibility in the Provisional Measures Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 641-668 ◽  
Author(s):  
MASSIMO LANDO
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

AbstractIn 2009, the International Court of Justice introduced plausibility as a requirement for indicating provisional measures under Article 41 of its Statute. Upon its introduction, plausibility was conceived as a test to establish that the rights asserted by applicant states might exist under international law. However, the Court subsequently developed the plausibility test into a higher standard, which requires the Court also to assess that the alleged conduct of the respondent state might breach that applicant state's asserted rights. This development has important implications for provisional measures proceedings before the Court. First, one could distinguish two aspects of plausibility, legal and factual. Second, plausibility has different functions in requests for provisional measures depending on whether the applicant state asserts rights arising under a treaty or under customary international law. Third, the Court's enquiry into plausibility could overlap with the enquiry into prima facie jurisdiction ratione materiae, although these two requirements conceivably entail different thresholds. Fourth, plausibility in provisional measures indicated in interpretation proceedings could be seen to be different from plausibility in provisional measures indicated in ordinary contentious proceedings.

scholarly journals Criminal Proceedings Against Albers

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (3) ◽  
pp. 632-638
Author(s):  
Filippo Fontanelli
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Law ◽  
World War ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In August 2012, the First Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation (Supreme Court or Court), the highest Italian domestic court, issued a judgment upholding Germany’s sovereign immunity from civil claims brought by Italian war crime victims against Paul Albers and eight others in the Italian courts (Albers). In so doing, the Court overruled its own earlier decisions and also reversed the judgment of April 20, 2011, by the Italian Military Court of Appeal (Military Court), which had upheld such claims relating to war crimes committed by German forces in Italy during World War II. With this ruling, the Court of Cassation put an end to its decade long effort to find an exception to the well-known rule of customary international law providing for sovereign immunity from foreign civil jurisdiction for actsjure imperii. Thisrevirementresulted from the Court’s decision to give effect to the judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) inGermany v. Italy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document